Istvánovits Eszter (szerk.): A nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 57. (Nyíregyháza, 2015)
Régészet - Kőrösfői Zsolt: Hogyan is nevezzelek? Az erdélyi késő császárkori leletek értelmezési módjai a román régészetben
Hogyan is nevezzelek? A great deficiency of archaeology is that in the case of multi-period sites, we can hardly decide in the case of periods following each other, whether settlement layers or features situated on each other show continuity or they get one over another incidentally. That is to say, the question is whether the newcomers chose deliberately or just by chance the same territory for a place of village and cemetery as the aborigine population. In our case this would mean the continuity of Roman settlements and forts, continuity of Roman provincial population and later the continuity of the Marosszentanna—Chernyahov Culture during the Hun Age. What we know is that there are Late Roman finds coming from the territory of Roman forts, towns, villae rusticae or their direct environments. More exactly, this is the situation at all of the sites where excavations have been conducted. We know less about the further history of Roman Age villages that were investigated on a lower degree. However, judging from field walks, at sites where Roman and “post-Roman” shards are found together, we can suggest a similar situation in many cases. It is also difficult to prove the continuity of the Marosszentanna-Chemyahov Culture in the Hun and Gepidian Periods, but there are several signs showing that we have to count with it similarly to the earlier provincial Roman and Dacian (?) elements at the beginning of the culture in Transylvania. In the case of the multi-level sites, where beside the finds characteristic for the 4th century, also 5th (and even 6th century) finds come to light, we may suggest the same as in the case of the common appearance of Roman Age and Marosszentanna-Chernyahov Culture features. At some sites there was no connection between these archaeological features, at others there may have been some kind of continuity. The term “post-Chemyahov horizon”, generally used in the research of the European Barbaricum, is becoming more and more accepted in Romania (Opreanu 2011.). We know several sites starting in the 4th century, the latest finds of which were dated to the early 5th century. From some graves of the recently excavated Emei cemetery of Gepidian Age hump backed combs characteristic for the Marosszentanna-Chernyahov Culture came to light (!). The theory of Daco-Roman continuity has been affecting the Late Roman Age research of Transylvania from the very beginning. As a consequence, we observe the spread of terms of correlating aspect and “talkative” datings, designations frequently used in Romania. The “Pre-feudal Age” as the period preceding Middle Ages or the “Post-Roman Period” closing the Roman Age is often related to the image of continuous local, autochthonous population and the newly arriving and shortly staying wandering peoples. This differentiation continues on the level of finds and archaeological phenomena. As an example we can mention local population considered to be early Christian because of gem and lamp findings. Usually these people using coins (mainly bronze ones) and continuing trade based on money are opposed to the Barbarians who used coins only because of their precious metal value. At the same time datings, ethnic and cultural determinations of Transylvanian Late Roman Age sites - that are frequently unprofessional and influenced by political factors - do not stand so far from historical and archaeological reality. Heterogeneous tribal alliance, including several peoples, penetrating into Transylvania arrived to a territory with varied geographical conditions and different historical backgrounds. At the end of the Marosszentanna-Chemyahov Culture this very colourful picture became even more turbulent as a consequence of ethnic movements inspired by the Huns. 147
